I would buy these too. I hope Canon found it in their, and our, best interest to put a rubber O-ring seal on the mount. It would be a simple thing to do and would add to the popularity of the brand name. Why Canon overlooks this simple modification on all lenses puzzles me.

If weathersealing was as simple as this, all the third party lens makers would be doing it.

When we pay for a weather sealed body it doesn't make sense to have the lens attachment unsealed. There should be a rubber seal on the mount of all lenses or a rubber seal on the body mount or you really don't have a weather sealed body. The reason a third party has not made a retro fit sealed mount available is the patented EF mount is owned by Canon. You won't see it happen if Canon doesn't do it.

Just my two cents, but for me, I'd find an update of the 200 mm f2.8 prime to include IS much more interesting than any of these. Unlikely, I suppose, because it might torpedo sales of the 70-200 zooms.

Just my two cents, but for me, I'd find an update of the 200 mm f2.8 prime to include IS much more interesting than any of these. Unlikely, I suppose, because it might torpedo sales of the 70-200 zooms.

I would fancy a very sharp 50 1.4 with the same IQ as the recently announced Nikon 58mm. If it is sharper than the 24-70 ii and offers 2-stops larger aperture with fast AF, i wpuld be willing to pay the same pricetag as the Nikon 58mm.

The 20mm f2.8 really needs an update. And while they're at it a 17 or 18 mm prime would be nice too. The 17 TSE is great, but it's bulky, doesn't take filters, lacks AF, and is very expensive. Canon needs something better than second rate zooms in that range.

When we pay for a weather sealed body it doesn't make sense to have the lens attachment unsealed. There should be a rubber seal on the mount of all lenses or a rubber seal on the body mount or you really don't have a weather sealed body. The reason a third party has not made a retro fit sealed mount available is the patented EF mount is owned by Canon. You won't see it happen if Canon doesn't do it.

As I understand it, most lenses advertised as weathersealed by Canon are fully so (i.e. including that gasket you refer to) with the exception of the front element. A filter is needed for the sealing to be 'complete'.

One exception I am aware of is a longer lens like the 300 F/4 or the 100-400 (I forget which) that is weathersealed except for the gasket on the lens mount. They just didn't include it for some reason.

The point I was making previously is that a rubber gasket on the lens mount doesn't do much if all access points (switches, silding elements in the case of zooms or external focusers, etc.) aren't also weathersealed. That's why non-sealed lenses from Canon don't bother with a rubber gasket, I would assume -- it would be like having an almost water-tight hull of a boat.

I know I'm in the minority, but I find the 50mm range boring, I much prefer 35mm so no interest there. I'm very happy with my 85 1.8, adding IS won't do a thing to freeze motion, it might allow you to go up a click in ISO but then I consider it a wash. If a 135L f2 IS is released, THAT would get my attention and my money.

Finally a 50mm with a decent AF system?The 135mm f/2 L IS would be lovely for weddings!

I agree but if their recent offerings are any guide it would be an f2.8.

How do you figure that? There recent offerings have been the same apertures as the lenses they replaced...

-24/2.8 replaced by 24/2.8 IS-28/2.8 replaced by 28/2.8 IS-35/2 replaced by 35/2 IS

Get the picture? I think Canon's original plan was to just start updating all the old Primes that lacked USM focusing and then they realized that adding IS was a good idea so they've stuck with it and now it appears they're going to carry it over into the lenses which already had USM (which is great!). I don't get why people refuse to accept new technology. If you don't want IS, turn it off...

If the rumor is right then it makes perfect sense that the new 50mm will be a 1.8, which is fine. People claiming they NEED f/1.4 are usually amateurs with a "bokeh" fetish. There's not a whole lot of DOF difference between f/1.4-f/1.8. When shooting on FF you'll need to stop to f/2-2.8 for most subjects anyway, unless you really just want one eye or one tiny sliver of your subject in focus... the internet is ridiculous. I'd buy a 50/1.8 IS with optical quality matching the other new IS primes in a heart beat, I'd even be fine with it being an f/2 lens, possibly even a f/2.8 (which it won't be).

I'm very happy with my 85 1.8, adding IS won't do a thing to freeze motion, it might allow you to go up a click in ISO but then I consider it a wash. If a 135L f2 IS is released, THAT would get my attention and my money.

I was saying the same thing, but if the 85mm is improved optically a decent amount and only lose a 1/3 of a stop (f/1.8 -> f/2), that's not too bad of a tradeoff. Unless they jack the price up to $1k. Then they should just go ahead and give it an L treatment, even if it's not going to be the same as the 85mm f/1.2.

I find it interesting that fans of great lenses like the 135 F/2L salivate over the chance to see something new added to it (perhaps IS, perhaps F/1.8, etc.), but a lot of folks are ho hum about the 50 F/1.4 just getting modernized and roundly improved on many fronts.

I see things the opposite way. What if this 50 update is the great sharpness and color tool for the 50mm crowd that the 135 F/2L has been for so long? I see so much opportunity for the 50 prime length to improve, while the 135 F/2L, from all I've heard on this forum (it's adored like the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II), just logically isn't going to get that much better with a next generation offering -- it's already excellent, right?

It's shameful lack of a Canon 50mm with AF fast and accurate, with good sharpness when wide open. If you have the image quality and robust construction of the new Image Stabilizer 24/28/35, will be a success. Unless it costs 4 times more than current models.

It's shameful lack of a Canon 50mm with AF fast and accurate, with good sharpness when wide open. If you have the image quality and robust construction of the new Image Stabilizer 24/28/35, will be a success. Unless it costs 4 times more than current models.

It will be pricey for a while and then come down. Consider (a) the price performance of the three refreshes that came before, and (b) consider how densely packed with options the 50mm length is.

Based on those trends, I'd say they'd open with $799 which would become $500-$600 in a year's time. I still think they will open as high as the prior refreshes because they know there are guys like me who really want that 8 to 9 out of 10 at everything standard prime with IS. Again, many pros still use that 50 F/1.4 over the F/1.2L and would gladly pay good money for something that is better. Canon knows this and (for a short while) will command a high price.

I was just looking at the Olympus 150F2, it's pretty much the same thing (and not cheap).

How much would you pay for a 135f1.8? I mean, if something like that did come out it very well could end up costing $3,000.

You can get away with that if you go all Zeiss Otus on a focal length that has never had an all-around spectacular lens (like 50mm primes!).

But very few folks would pay that much when the current 135mm F/2L is so damn good and so cheap at around $900-$1000. Folks won't pay +$2k for IS and a 1/3 of a stop faster if the resolution is the same as the old 135mm F/2L.